Search This Blog

Anganwadi Worker. - under G.O. Ms. No. 28, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 2.12.2004, the Committee selected and appointed the 1st respondent-writ petitioner by order dated 8.1.2009 as Anganwadi Worker. = since the issue of eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner still remains to be decided by the competent authority, without interfering with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ appeal by further directing the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent herein, to place the representation of the appellant and the issue with regard to eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner before the Committee as constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above, and as duly revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012 to enable the said Committee to consider the eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the said Committee will follow principles of natural justice and will give notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

It appears that the appellant herein filed a representation objecting to the appointment of 1st respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that she is not a resident of BadapuramVillage, but is a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village of Tarlapadu Mandal.

Further the appellant moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 7093 of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the official respondents in considering the representation filed by her and by order dated 6.4.2009, this Court directed the 1st respondent therein, i.e., the District Collector/Committee Chairman, Prakasam District at Ongole to dispose of the said representation of the appellant after issuing notice and after enquiring into the nativity and eligibility of the 1strespondent-writ petitioner.

It further appears that the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency (D.W.C.D.A.), Ongole issued notices, considered the explanation of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and ordered removal of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that she was found residing at Jagannadhapuram Village at the time of notification and interview and since she is not a resident of Badapuram Village, she was removed from the post of Anganwadi worker. Simultaneously, the appellant was appointed in the said post on 12.1.2010.

Questioning the said order of removal, the 1strespondent-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 601 of 2010, which has since been allowed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that when the appointing authority is the Committee, the matter of removal must necessarily go before the very authority. The said order of the learned Single Judge is questioned in this appeal.

It is not in dispute that the appointment of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was in pursuance of the decision of the Committee constituted as per G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above. In addition to that, a circular was issued by the Government as early as on 9.2.1995 to the effect that the appointment, removal, acceptance of resignation as well as the transfers of Anganwadi workers must be dealt with by the Committee referred to above.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said G.O. and the Committee thereunder have since been revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012.

However, the fact that a Committee is constituted for the purpose of appointment, removal, transfers etc., of the Anganwadi workers is not disputed even under the revised G.O. referred to above. In that view of the matter, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that when the appointment of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was made by the Committee, the order of removal must also be considered by the said Committee and consequently, the removal order passed by the Project Director, under the impugned proceedings referred to above, was rightly held to be unsustainable on that aspect and in that view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for interference in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant, however submits that there is unimpeachable evidence to show that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is not the resident of BadapuramVillage and at the time of notification and interview, she was a resident of JagannadhapuramVillage. It is also stated that after the writ petition was allowed under the impugned order, the appellant was removed and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was again reinstated and continued as Anganwadi worker.

Therefore, since the issue of eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner still remains to be decided by the competent authority, without interfering with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ appeal by further directing the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent herein, to place the representation of the appellant and the issue with regard to eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner before the Committee as constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above, and as duly revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012 to enable the said Committee to consider the eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law.

We hope and trust that the said Committee will follow principles of natural justice and will give notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …